Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan "Area in Recovery Status Report 1 for Jackfish Bay."

1. Jackfish Bay
Remedial Action Plan
Stage
2
Update:
Area
in
Recovery
Status
Report
1
for
Jackfish
Bay
May
2010
0

2. Dedicated to Tom Falzetta
Tom's attention to detail, his passion for the outdoors and his local knowledge made him an
invaluable member of the PARRC committee. For the members of the committee our memory of
Tom lives on in this report as each of us found ourselves reading through the final draft with Tom's
critical eye and determination to get this right.
Tom Falzetta
1952-2009
1

3. Acknowledgements
The Remedial Action Plan team wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance that has been
provided by the current Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery Review Committee, and the past
Jackfish Bay Public Advisory Committees, which have greatly contributed to the current success of
the Remedial Action Plan program.
Report Writing / Editor: Dr. Robert Stewart, Water Resource Science Program, Department of
Geography, Lakehead University; Aaron Nicholson and Matthew Adams, Research Assistants,
Department of Geography, Lakehead University.
Input Provided by the Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan Team:
Marilee Chase Lake Superior Basin COA Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Services
Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.
Michelle McChristie Great Lakes Advisor, Northern Region, Ministry of the Environment.
Dr. Agnes Richards Remedial Action Plan Program Officer, Great Lakes Areas of Concern,
Environment Canada.
Kate Taillon Senior Program Coordinator, Great Lakes Areas of Concern,
Environment Canada.
Input Provided by the Jackfish Bay Technical Review Committee:
Peter Addison Assessment Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Services Branch, Ministry of
Natural Resources.
Emily Awad Biomonitoring Regional Support Scientist, Environmental Monitoring
and Reporting Branch, Ministry of the Environment.
Stacey Baker Senior Environmental Scientist, Environmental Monitoring and
Reporting Branch, Ministry of the Environment.
Satyendra Bhavsar Research Scientist, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch,
Ministry of the Environment.
Ken Cullis Lake Superior Management Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Services
Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.
Rachel Fletcher Regional Support Scientist, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Branch, Ministry of the Environment.
Ken Flood Environmental Officer, Natural Resources Sector, Environment
Canada.
Lee Grapentine Research Scientist, Water Science and Technology Directorate,
Environment Canada.
Dr. Mark McMaster Research Scientist, Ecosystem Health Assessment, Environment
Canada.
Danielle Milani Biologist, Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment
Canada.
Dr. Chip Weseloh Supervisor, Conservation Strategies, Canadian Wildlife Service.
2

4. Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery Review Committee:
Dave Tamblyn (Chair) Rod Mercure
Trent Desaulniers Carmelo Notarbartolo
Bruce Kirschner Ray Tyhius
Don McArthur Jack Moore
Joe Kutcher Jody Davis
Tom Falzetta
Lakehead University Scientific Review Committee:
Dr. Ken Deacon
Northern Bioscience Ecological Consulting
Specialization: Aquatic Entomology
Reviewing: Dynamics of Benthos & Body Burdens of Benthos
Dr. Philip Fralick
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Geology. Director, Water Resource Science
Specialization: Depositional Environments & Sedimentology
Reviewing: Sediment Contamination & Restrictions on Dredging
Dr. David Law
Associate Professor, Department of Biology
Specialization: Plant biochemistry, molecular biology and biotechnology (Molecular level effects of
pulp and paper effluent).
Reviewing: Degradation of fish population (including fish reproduction)
Dr. Peter Lee
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Specialization: Wetlands Ecology; Plant Nutrient Requirements; Aquatic Toxicology
Reviewing: Water Quality and Effluent Toxicity
Dr. Walter Momot
Professor Emeritus/Contract Lecturer, Department of Biology
Specialization: Fish Ecology (Production ecology, zoogeography, and population dynamics of fish
and invertebrates in boreal lakes).
Reviewing: Degradation of Fish Habitat and Fish Populations
Dr. Gregory Pyle
Associate Professor and Canadian Research Chair
Specialization: Aquatic Toxicology (Role of chemical communication systems in maintaining aquatic
ecosystem integrity)
Reviewing: Restrictions on Fish Consumption & Body Burdens of Fish
With input from:
Dr. Kelly Munkittrick Canada Research Chair in Ecosystem Health Assessment, Department of
Biology, University of New Brunswick, and
Dan McDonell, Remedial Action Plan Program Officer, Environment Canada
3

5. Executive Summary
Background
This document summarizes the work of research Insert A: An Area in Recovery (AiR) is
completed to date within the Jackfish Bay Area of an area that was originally identified as
Concern and finds that, according to the definition an area of concern where, based on
provide by the Canada-Ontario Agreement community and government consensus,
Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (2007) all scientifically feasible and economically
Jackfish Bay qualifies as an Area in Recovery (AiR) reasonable actions have been
(Insert A). While significant improvement has implemented and additional time is
occurred since the Area was originally listed as an required for the environment to recover
Area of Concern, additional time is still required for (Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
sufficient ecosystem recovery to be detected. While the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem 2007).
scientific studies on various aspects of the health of
Jackfish Bay have provided information about many
aspects of the ecosystem, a focused monitoring program is recommended to conclusively track
ecosystem recovery with the long-term goal of removing Jackfish Bay from the list of Great Lakes
Areas of Concern (delisting the AOC).
Recognizing that natural recovery would be slow and that parts of the AOC may not recover while
industrial effluent is discharged, the Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery Review Committee, the
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada have
recommended that the Jackfish Bay Area of Concern (AOC) be recognized as an Area in Recovery
(AiR). This is primarily based on the fact that the Jackfish Bay AOC meets the definition of an AiR in
terms of remedial actions having been completed, and because both the Jackfish Bay Remedial
Action Plan Team and the Public Area in Recovery Review Committee agree that further remedial
actions are not practical or feasible at this time. Although many data gaps exits that inhibit the ability
for reviewers to accurately assess the status of beneficial use impairments (Insert B) in the Jackfish
Bay AOC, there have been both visible and measurable signs of recovery, and some BUIs have
been delisted in this report. Additionally, the quality of the mill effluent has improved and periodic
mill shutdowns since the last stage of the Remedial Action Plan process have resulted in noticeable
ecosystem improvements.
Insert B: A Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) Ongoing monitoring and scientific study will be
means a change in the chemical, physical or required o determine the level of recovery in the
biological integrity of the Great Lakes System AOC, and if and when Jackfish Bay can be
is sufficient to cause restrictions on fish and removed from the list of Areas of Concern. The
wildlife consumption, tainting of fish and wildlife purpose of this report is to provide current status
flavour, degradation of fish and wildlife assessment of all the remaining impairments
populations, fish, bird or animal tumours or through a review of data collected since the
other deformities and reproductive problems, initial stages of the Remedial Action Plan. This
degradation of benthos, restrictions on report presents these assessments relative to
dredging activities, eutrophication, restrictions restoration targets, known as delisting criteria,
on drinking water consumption, beach and provides recommendations about the
closures, degradation to aesthetics, monitoring needs required to track progress
degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton towards recovery. Input from the Public Area in
populations, added costs to agriculture or Recovery Review Committee (PARRC) and
industry or loss of fish and wildlife habitat general public are critical to the recognition of
(Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1978). Jackfish Bay as an Area in Recovery.
4

6. Acknowledging that full recovery and delisting of the Insert C: Adaptive Management is a
AOC may not occur as long as Blackbird Creek systematic process for continually
continues to receive mill effluent, it is expected that improving management policies and
incremental progress will continue to proceed based practices by learning from the outcomes
on actions implemented to date. Recognizing the of previously employed policies and
Jackfish Bay Area of Concern as an Area in Recovery practices. (Source: Millennium
and agreeing to follow a natural recovery strategy will Ecosystem Assessment)
require that the current and future mill owners
maintain high standards of effluent quality.
Successfully tracking ecosystem recovery requires the commitment of several government agencies
to a long-term monitoring program. This monitoring program should utilize an adaptive management
approach (Insert C) and should seek to assess progress towards ecosystem recovery as it relates to
the point source of pollution in the AOC. In the event that recovery is not occurring as expected, the
agencies should consider additional remedial actions or the use of new or emerging technologies.
The monitoring program will allow managers to draw conclusions about recovery and assess
whether restoration targets have met the final delisting criteria. It is important that such monitoring
objectives are developed through an integrated watershed management approach (Inset D).
The Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery
Insert D: Integrated Watershed Management Review Committee (PARRC) concluded that
considers local as well as regional issues and is since the Jackfish Bay AOC could be among
rooted in an ecosystem approach to the very first Great Lakes AOCs to receive
management that uses the watershed as a “recovery” status, it may be viewed by others
water quality planning unit. It results in a better as a model for designation of recovery status
understanding of water quality and quantity and across the Great Lakes. Consequently, the
aquatic ecosystem problems and makes it committee suggested that standards should be
possible to identify sustainable solutions. high and that the parties involved in the
Watershed-based management also makes it process should take on a proactive role. In
easier to define action priorities by considering recognition of the preceding fundamental
the cumulative impacts on aquatic ecosystems. approach, the PARRC stated that, in advance
of recovery status designation, the following
actions should take place:
• The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment
Canada and any other government agencies concerned should agree to a long-term
monitoring program documenting environmental quality in the Jackfish Bay AOC. This plan
should lay out both financial and implementation responsibilities.
• All possible efforts should be made to advance environmental recovery. As new technology,
methods or systems become available, which might reduce current environmental impacts,
these remedial options be investigated and implemented where appropriate, practical and
cost-effective.
• Through the PARRC, open, meaningful, regular and timely communication should take place
between involved government agencies and residents of the Rossport, Schreiber, Terrace
Bay and Jackfish communities.
The purpose of this report is to assess progress towards achieving restoration targets for each
beneficial use impairment in the Jackfish Bay AOC and to provide recommendations for a long-term
monitoring plan to assess ongoing recovery. This report therefore provides an updated resource and
platform for community members, the PARRC and responsible government agencies to continue a
dialogue about the status of beneficial use impairments in the Jackfish Bay Area in Recovery. This
review of information in this report was conducted by a review committee of faculty members from
Lakehead University, The Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan Team, the Jackfish Bay Technical
Team and the Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery Review Committee (PARRC).
5

7. Table of Contents
1.0 History of Jackfish Bay Area of Concern ...............................................................................8
1.1 Description of Jackfish Bay .........................................................................................................8
1.2 Determining the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs).................................................................10
1.2.1 Stage 1 (1991): Defining the Beneficial Use Impairments ................................................12
1.2.2 Stage 2 (1998): Remediation Strategy for the Area of Concern .......................................12
1.2.3 2010 Area in Recovery Status............................................................................................12
2.0 Summary of Activities in Support of the RAP......................................................................14
2.1 Short Term Water Use Goal......................................................................................................14
2.1.1 Regulatory Improvements ..................................................................................................14
2.1.2 Mill Processing/Operation Improvements ..........................................................................15
2.1.3 Improvements to Water Quality During the RAP Process..................................................15
2.1.4 Evaluation of Water Quality................................................................................................17
2.1.5 Improvements to Sediment Quality During the RAP Process ............................................18
2.2 Long-Term Water Quality Goals and Revised Delisting Criteria ...............................................19
3.0 The Status of Beneficial Use Impairments in Jackfish Bay ................................................21
3.1 The Current Status of Beneficial Uses ......................................................................................22
3.2 Beneficial Uses .........................................................................................................................22
3.2.1 Degradation of Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................22
3.2.2 Body Burdens of Wildlife ....................................................................................................23
3.2.3 Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems .......................................................23
3.2.4 Degradation of Aesthetics ..................................................................................................24
3.2.5 Restrictions on Fish Consumption......................................................................................25
3.2.6 Body Burdens of Fish .........................................................................................................28
3.2.7 Degradation of Fish Populations ........................................................................................30
3.2.8 Fish Tumours and Other Deformities .................................................................................30
3.2.9 Loss of Fish Habitat............................................................................................................32
3.2.10 Dynamics of Benthic Populations.....................................................................................32
3.2.11 Body Burdens of Benthic Populations..............................................................................33
4.0 Monitoring Recommendations ..............................................................................................35
4.1 Recommendations: Restrictions on Fish Consumption and Body Burdens of Fish ..................35
4.2 Recommendations: Degradation of Fish Population.................................................................36
4.3 Recommendations: Loss of Fish Habitat ..................................................................................38
4.4 Recommendations: Dynamics of Benthic Populations..............................................................39
4.5 Recommendations: Body Burdens of Benthic Populations......................................................40
5.0 Public Area In Recovery Review Committee (PARRC) Recommendations ......................41
5.1 A Phased Approach to Understanding Area in Recovery Status ..............................................41
5.2 Conditions and Criteria of the Area in Recovery Status............................................................42
5.2.1 BUI Status and Terminology ..............................................................................................43
5.2.2 Monitoring Plans and Commitment to Address Data Gaps................................................44
5.2.3 The Implications of Natural Recovery and Defining AiR Status .........................................45
5.2.4 The Implications of Mill Operation to the AiR Status ..........................................................45
5.2.5 The Implications of Historic Contaminants in Blackbird Creek To AiR Status ...................45
5.2.6 Commitment to Ongoing Community Participation and Education ....................................46
6.0 Glossary...................................................................................................................................48
7.0 References...............................................................................................................................50
8.0 Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................53
9.0 Appendix B ..............................................................................................................................65
10.0 Appendix C............................................................................................................................71
6

8. Table of Figures & Tables
Figure 1.1: The Jackfish Bay Area of Concern .....................................................................................9
Figure 1.2: Timeline of Jackfish Bay AOC ..........................................................................................11
Figure 3.1: Sampling block locations for Lake Superior as defined by the Ministry of the Environment
Sport Fishing Contaminant Monitoring Program.................................................................................26
Figure 3.2: Average concentrations of Hg, PCB and dioxin/furan in 55-65 cm lake trout from Jackfish
Bay (block 8) and Schreiber/Sewell Point area (block 7)...................................................................29
Figure 3.3: Average concentrations of Hg, PCB and dioxin/furan in 50-60 cm lake whitefish from
Jackfish Bay (block 8) and Schreiber/Sewell Point area (block 7).....................................................29
Table 2.1: Timeline for the Changes to the Mill Process and Operation ............................................16
Table 2.2: Changes in Water Quality from the Initiation of the RAP to Present .................................17
Table 2.3: Water Use Goals and Delisting Criteria for the Jackfish Bay AOC...................................20
Table 3.1: Status of Beneficial Use Impairment in the Jackfish Bay Area of Concern .......................21
Table 3.2: List of fish consumption restrictions for the Jackfish Bay (Block 8) for general and
sensitive (women of child-bearing age and children under 15) populations (MOE 2009) ..................26
Table 3.3: List of fish consumption restrictions for the open water reference area, Schreiber/Sewell
Point area (Block 7) (MOE 2009)........................................................................................................26
Table 3.4 Fish Consumption Restrictions (meals/month) for the Jackfish Bay (MOE 2009) ..............27
Table 3.6 Upper Great Lake AOCs (Thunder and Jackfish Bays and the St. Clair River) and
reference locations (Mountain Bay and Lake Huron) tumor prevalence, and the significance of
differences between AOCs and reference sites (Baumann, Unpublished Report).............................31
7

9. 1.0 History of Jackfish Bay Area of Concern
The Jackfish Bay Area of Concern is one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified by
the governments of Canada and the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA, 1978). These areas are locations where environmental quality is significantly degraded,
resulting in the impairment of beneficial uses for humans and wildlife. A Beneficial Use Impairment
(BUI) means a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes System is
sufficient to cause restrictions on a range of beneficial uses outlined in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978. In 1987 Canada and the United States identified Jackfish Bay as an
AOC based on a series of impairments to the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the
area.
The impairments in Jackfish Bay were the result of wastewater (effluent) from the Kraft mill located in
Terrace Bay. Since 1948, the mill has discharged effluent to a canal that flows into Blackbird Creek
and then Jackfish Bay (Figure 1.1). In accordance with the GLWQA, government agencies working
with local stakeholders have developed Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for each AOC. These plans
guide restoration and protection efforts; each RAP proceeds through three stages.
• Stage 1: Identify environmental problems and sources of pollution.
• Stage 2: Evaluate and carry out actions to restore the area.
• Stage 3: Confirm that these actions have been effective and that the environment has been
restored.
After monitoring indicates that beneficial uses and ecosystem health have been restored the process
of removing Jackfish Bay from the list of Great Lakes AOCs can begin. The decision to remove an
AOC is called delisting, and the decision is made by the federal, provincial, and local RAP
participants, with advice from the International Joint Commission. As of April 2010, of the 17 Areas of
Concern in Canada, 3 have been delisted, Collingwood Harbour and Severn Sound, and Wheatley
Harbour. Spanish Harbour has been recognized as an Area in Recovery (www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas).
Presque Isle Bay in the United States has also been recognized as an Area in Recovery since 2002
and the Oswega River AOC was delisted in 2006 (www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc).
1.1 Description of Jackfish Bay
The Jackfish Bay Area of Concern (AOC) is located on the north shore of Lake Superior,
approximately 250 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay. The AOC consists of the 14-kilometre reach
of Blackbird Creek between the effluent canal from the Kraft mill (Terrace Bay Pulp Inc.) and Jackfish
Bay. This area also encompasses Moberly Lake (Lake ‘C’) as well as Jackfish Bay (Figure 1.1).
8

10. Sister Lakes Eric Gordon
Minnow
Lake Lake Lake
17
Poulin
Lake
Bass Jackfish
Lake Lake Moon
Perch k Moberley Lake
d Cree A Lake
Lake Blackbir Lake
(Lake C)
Lake
Santoy
B
Lake
AL
17
N
Tunnel Little
CA
T
Moberley Bay Santoy
EN
U
Lake
FL
Bay
EF
Figure 1.1: The Jackfish Bay Area of Concern
17
Jackfish Bay
Foxxe
St. Patrick
Island
Lake
Former Town
of Jackfish
Terrace Bay Victoria Bay
Cape
Victoria
Disclaimer: This map is intended for illustrative purposes only.
Digital Mapping Sources: Base mapping features -
Ministry of Natural Resources and NPCA.
North American Datum 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator,
Zone 16 North, Central Meridian -87.0
Lake Superior 0 1 2 4
Kilometres
Legend Great Lakes
Pulp Mill Railway AOC Hydrology Areas of Concern
Effluent Canal Wetlands Jackfish Bay Area of Concern
Major Highways
Airport Forest Cover
Roads
9

11. The closest town is Terrace Bay, which has a population of approximately 1625 in 2006 (Statistics
Canada, 2006). The mill was built in 1947 and supported the development of Terrace Bay. At the
beginning of the mill’s operation the decision was made to discharge mill effluent via the Blackbird
Creek system.
The Blackbird Creek watershed drains an area of 62 square kilometres. The creek rises near the
town of Terrace Bay and flows in a southeasterly direction for 14 kilometres into the northern tip of
Moberly Bay. Blackbird Creek became more visible to the public in 1957, when Highway 17 was
constructed east of Terrace Bay and a portion of the creek was re-routed alongside the Trans-
Canada highway. In 1989 a large culvert upstream of Highway 17 was installed to alleviate ice and
fog formation from the creek, as well as foam and odour that was detected along the highway
(Jackfish Bay RAP Team Stage 2, 1992. pg 4).
As Blackbird Creek drains to Jackfish Bay and Lake Superior it historically passed through two
shallow lakes referred to as Lake ‘A’ and Moberly Lake. Lake ‘A’ originally covered a surface area of
19 hectares with depths up to 6.1 metres. Due to the accumulation of woody fibre from the effluent,
substantial in-filling has occurred. In the 1980s, the flow of Blackbird Creek was redirected to bypass
Lake A. From site visits and aerial inspections it appears that much of this lake is now a wetland
covered with submerged vegetation. Moberly Lake is 29 hectares in size with an original maximum
depth of 6.4 metres. Depth decreased to 0.8 metres due to woody fibre in-filling from the effluent
(Jackfish Bay RAP Team Stage 2, 1992).
Blackbird Creek drains into the western side of Jackfish Bay, which contains two inner arms, Moberly
Bay on the west and Tunnel Bay on the east. The total surface area of Jackfish Bay is 6.4 square
kilometres. The largest islands are Cody Island, which is located in the extreme southwest of
Moberly Bay; Bennett Island, located in southeastern Moberly Bay; and St. Patrick Island, located
near the eastern shore of Jackfish Bay.
1.2 Determining the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs)
Figure 1.2 provides a timeline of the process used by government agencies and the Jackfish Bay
Public Advisory Committee to assess and define the Jackfish Bay AOC. In 1988, the team
documented environmental conditions in the Bay, and the identification of a series of potential
beneficial use impairments (BUIs) that would define the AOC.
10

12. 1985 ---
Jackfish Bay was identified by the International Joint --- 1988
Commission (IJC) as one of 42 Areas of Concern in the Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the
Great Lakes Basin Environment between 1988 and 1997 developed the Jackfish
Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP), with support from the general
1988 --- public.
The public advisory committee (PAC) was formed
following the first public input session. The thirteen PAC --- 1989
members included representatives from the public,
First public Advisory Committee meeting held May 9th in
Kimberly Clark Canada Ltd., Charter Boat Services, the
mill union, Jackfish Lake Cottages, the Township of Terrace Bay, Ontario. Subsequent meetings were held
Terrace Bay, Ducks Unlimited, Minnova Mines, and the monthly.
Ontario Underwater Council
--- 1990
1990 --- “Making a Great Lake Superior” conference was held March 22-
PAC developed a set of Water Use Goals (WUGs), 24, in Thunder Bay. RAP teams and PAC’s from Ontario’s,
which were presented to the public in September. Input Minnesota’s, Wisconsin’s and Michigan’s Lake Superior Areas of
from the public was involved in creating the finalized concern, scientists, resource managers, industry people and
WUG’s. Environmentalists from Canada and the United States attended.
1992 --- --- 1991
Beak Consultants present findings about Toxic Load of Stage 1 RAP report created, outlining beneficial use
Blackbird Creek system and Alternatives for impairment’s as decided with community input based on a list of
Rehabilitation. 14 possible beneficial use impairments.
1995 --- --- 1992
The RAP team prepared a discussion of the remedial IJC Stage 1 Review Teams tour the Lake Superiors AOC’s.
options for Jackfish Bay.
-- 1998
2008 --- Stage 2 RAP report created., this report recognized that the mill
The Public Area in Recovery Review Committee had upgraded its effluent treatment system, and that the toxins
(PARRC) was created with the task of ensuring did not seem to be accumulating up the food web. The
feedback on the proposed delisting criteria, the Area in recommendation was to monitor Blackbird Creek Lake A, Lake C
Recovery recognition and that a long term monitoring and Jackfish Bay for progress towards delisting, with no further
plan is obtained intervention to be taken, allowing for natural recovery to occur.
The PAC developed Water Use Goals within this report and
suggested required monitoring needs.
2008 ---
A second meeting of the PARRC occurred in October
that was open to the public discussing the updated -- 2009
status of each Beneficial Use Impairment, the proposed May 8th, Lake Superior Binational Forum Public Input Sessions
long term monitoring plan and the arguments for Area in held in Terrace Bay. Public Area in Recovery Review
Recovery recognition. The MOE, Environment Canada Committee (PARRC) appointed community members to Chair
and the PARRC presented to the Terrace Bay Tow and Vice Chair of the committee. Public Input sessions
Council on the AiR status. occurred, with presentations from academics, scientists and
government employees about status of Jackfish Bay and
information about the Area in Recovery Report that is expected
in late 2009.
Figure 1.2: Timeline of Jackfish Bay AOC
11

13. 1.2.1 Stage 1 (1991): Defining the Beneficial Use Impairments
In 1989, a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was established by local citizens and stakeholder
groups from Terrace Bay. The original PAC had 13 members and included representatives from the
public, the pulp mill, the town and a range of local stakeholder groups. The Jackfish Bay Technical
Team was established to assist the PAC and consisted of members from Environment Canada,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
In the early stages, the PAC worked with the Technical Team to identify and describe impairments.
The Technical Team was responsible for the collection and analysis of data describing each of the
beneficial use impairments and to later provide suggestions for remediation actions in Stage 2.
In 1991, the results of this effort were documented in a Stage 1 Report: Environmental Conditions
and Problem Definition. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 provides a list of 14
possible beneficial use impairments. Appendix A shows the specific impairments that were identified
by the Jackfish Bay Public Advisory Committee (later termed the Public Area in Recovery Review
Committee) in Stages 1, Stage 2 and the Area in Recovery stage of the Remedial Action Plan.
1.2.2 Stage 2 (1998): Remediation Strategy for the Area of Concern
A variety of strategies for remediation of the Jackfish Bay AOC were developed by the Jackfish Bay
Technical Team, and presented to the PAC as a review of alternatives for rehabilitation (Technical
Report #13 Options for Blackbird Creek). Based on a review of these remediation options the RAP
Stage 2 report was published in 1998 (Stage 2: Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration).
The Stage 2 report outlined the remediation strategies that had been assessed and recommended
the selected remedial actions.
The RAP Team decided that an active remediation strategy was not feasible for this AOC, and
selected ‘natural recovery’ as the preferred option for restoring the Area of Concern. This
recommendation was made recognizing the following important factors:
1. The high costs and uncertainties associated with active intervention/remediation
2. The achievement of higher overall standards of pulp mill effluent quality from 1997-2008
allowing water quality to improve
3. An estimated 30-60 year timeframe (minimum) for recovery
4. That a closed loop process for treatment of mill effluent be preferable, but not practical
5. The necessity to revisit and reassess the remedial strategies
A ten-year period (1998-2008) has allowed time for some natural recovery. During this period the
results of ongoing monitoring programs in Jackfish Bay were communicated to the public via sport
fish consumption advisories, and updates from various Lake Superior advisory committees and the
Lake Superior Binational Forum.
1.2.3 2010 Area in Recovery Status
In support of the recommendation to continue with monitored natural recovery and pursue an Area in
Recovery recognition for this Area of Concern, Environment Canada together with the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources sought to renew community engagement in the
AOC through the establishment of the Public Area in Recovery Review Committee (PARRC) to carry
on in the role of the original Public Advisory Committee (PAC) and oversee the development of this
Area in Recovery Status Report. A draft version of revised delisting criteria for the AOC was created
and accepted by the Jackfish Bay Public Area in Recovery Committee (PARRC) in September 2008.
12

14. The primary justification for designating the Jackfish Bay AOC as an Area in Recovery is based on
the clear community and government consensus that all scientifically feasible and economically
reasonable actions have been implemented in the AOC, and additional time is still required for the
environment to recover (Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
2007). However, there is a general lack of clear and consistent evidence to support a complete
assessment of the status of all impaired beneficial uses against their respective delisting criteria, but
there is evidence to support the delisting of some BUIs and evidence that provides signs of
ecosystem recovery in the Jackfish Bay AOC. This evidence can be organized into high, medium
and low certainty levels based on the type of evidence collected since the beginning of the RAP
process:
1. High Certainty: Evidence from Primary Data Supporting a Particular BUI
• Since Stage 2 of the Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan there has been consistent
scientific evidence to delist the BUI pertaining to fish tumours and other deformities.
A number of studies from the 1990s through to 2006 have confirmed that the
incidence of fish tumours and other deformities in white suckers caught in Jackfish
Bay have declined below Lake Superior reference conditions, and are not
considered significant.
2. Medium Certainty: Evidence from Risk-Based Approaches Supporting a Particular BUI
• Through a conservative risk-based approach, the BUIs pertaining to wildlife
populations have been designated as not impaired. The risk of contaminants from
Blackbird Creek to be taken up by moose in the area was determined to extremely
low.
• Evidence from recent fish community index netting has indicated that Lake Trout in
Jackfish Bay are at levels that resemble lake wide conditions and provide an
indication of recovery in the fish population BUI.
• Bowron (2008) found a reduction in the number of liver neoplasm’s in whitefish
caught in Jackfish Bay during periods of mill closure. These results could indicate
improvement in the fish populations BUI. The results also provide secondary data
supporting the absence of scars in whitefish and the delisting of the fish tumours and
other deformities BUI.
3. Low Certainty: Evidence from Data Sources Requiring Further Assessment
• The current restrictions on Fish Consumption Restrictions are comparable to
reference sites outside of the Jackfish Bay AOC. However, further data needs to be
collected from within the AOC and reference site during the same year, and tested
for dioxins and furans particularly.
• Further evidence supporting the impairment of aesthetics has not been reported
since Stage 2 of the Remedial Action Plan process.
• There are signs of improvement in the BUIs pertaining to Benthos from 2003 to 2008
studies. This BUI is still impaired and further time is required to assess recovery.
• Overall, improvements to water quality and sediment quality are evident, however,
further monitoring is required to assess the water and sediment quality over time,
and pertaining to when the mill is operating versus when it is shut down.
In an Area in Recovery the government agencies continue to monitor environmental conditions to
assess how well recovery is proceeding. A monitoring plan guides data collection and future actions.
In the event that recovery is not occurring as expected, the agencies may consider additional
remedial actions. The final delisting of the AOC will begin when monitoring shows that the ecosystem
has recovered and delisting criteria have been met. Future monitoring should focus on:
• Reducing the overall data gaps in order to assess BUI status in relation to delisting criteria
• Adding to existing baseline to effectively assess the level of natural recovery over time
• Understanding ecosystem recovery during periods of mill operation vs. mill closure
• The severity of historic contamination in Blackbird Creek which is highly understudied
13

15. 2.0 Summary of Activities in Support of the RAP
2.1 Short Term Water Use Goal
Impairments in the Jackfish Bay AOC are attributed to historic effluent discharges from the pulp mill
in Terrace Bay, and improving the quality of this effluent has the most bearing on ecosystem
recovery. As a result, the only short-term goal that was developed in the Stage 2 RAP report stated
that:
“Discharge of toxins, particularly chlorinated organic compounds, from point
sources must be reduced to meet or exceed Federal and Provincial
standards(Jackfish Bay RAP Team, Stage 2, 1998, p. 17)”
2.1.1 Regulatory Improvements
When the Remedial Action Plan was initiated in the late 1980s, the mill discharged effluent that was
typical for a bleached kraft mill. The effluent produced high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) loads,
organochlorines, elevated colour and nutrients and a likely source of toxicity. Federal regulations for
pulp mills at this time consisted of the federal Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations passed under the
Federal Fisheries Act that limited BOD and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) discharge as well as the
stipulation that the discharge not be acutely toxic to rainbow trout. At the provincial level, the Ministry
of the Environment regulated effluent quality through the mill’s Certificate of Approval that was
issued under the Environmental Protection Act.
Significant changes occurred through the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem and a provincial/federal commitment to manage persistent toxic substances. The
Ministry of the Environment’s Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) regulations,
legislated within the Environmental Protection Act, reduced levels of persistent toxic substances in
industrial effluent by requiring that:
• Effluent meet prescribed limits based on a daily (i.e. not to exceed value on any day) and
monthly average
• Monitoring frequency demonstrate compliance with the limits
• Effluent not be toxic to fish and water fleas
• Each plant prepare an annual report that is available to the public
• Each plant submit summary quarterly reports to the ministry
• Incidents of non-compliance are reported directly to the ministry.
The effluent limits and monitoring requirements for the pulp and paper sector came into effect in
1996 and required reductions in BOD, TSS, phophorous, chloroform, toluene, phenol, dioxins,
furans, and toxicity for rainbow trout and water fleas, an indicator species that is commonly used in
toxicity tests.
The first cycle of the federal Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring was completed in
1996. This program requires pulp and paper mills to assess the impacts of their effluent on the
receiving environment on a three-year cycle. The federal Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated
Dioxins and Furan Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA
1999) initiated the industry switch from chlorine bleaching to chlorine dioxide bleaching which
effectively removed dioxin from pulp and paper mill effluent. In 2004, the federal government
implemented more stringent requirements in its Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations by amending
the Fisheries Act, and in 2008, the Environmental Effects Monitoring requirements were altered to
improve efficiency and effectiveness of the program (www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem)
14

16. In accordance with the Provisional Certificate of Approval, Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. is licensed to
produce 1372 tonnes/day of bleached pulp with a final finished product of 1372 tonne/day
(Environmental Protection Act – Ontario Regulation 760/93. Amendment: O. Reg. 233/07). Within
this Act various parameters and their maximum targets are outlined and the Terrace Bay pulp mill
has successfully met these regulations (Please see Appendix B for maximum targets and actual
discharge summaries for each parameter pertaining to the Terrace Bay pulp mill).
2.1.2 Mill Processing/Operation Improvements
Mill operations began in 1948 and produced pulp using a “kraft” process. The kraft process converts
wood chips into pulp through a chemical process that entails treatment of wood chips with a mixture
of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide, known as white liquor. The white liquor breaks down the
fibre in the wood and produces pulp, known as brown stock. In response to regulatory requirements
the pulp mill owners made the necessary processing and operational upgrades which have led to
reduced toxicity of mill effluent today. Table 2.1 outlines the significant process and operational
changes, completed upgrades and mill shutdowns since commissioning of the mill (Bowron, 2008).
The most significant change to the mill was the construction of a secondary treatment facility that
began operation in September, 1989. Other major improvements to the water treatment facility at the
mill included the change of the chlorine generator, which resulted in the production of elemental
chlorine free pulp and the modification of the pulping process with the installation of an acid activated
bleaching stage.
2.1.3 Improvements to Water Quality During the RAP Process
The majority of the improvements in effluent quality were related to turbidity, total suspended solids
(TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), acidity/alkalinity (pH), phosphorous (P), metals, phenols,
resin fatty acids, chloroform, toluene and dioxins and furans (Table 2.2). The ability to produce
elemental chlorine free pulp removed detectable dioxins and furans from the effluent and the
addition of secondary treatment removed resin acids and reduced the chronic toxicity and virtually
eliminated acute toxicity of the mill’s effluent.
15

17. Table 2.1: Timeline for the Changes to the Mill Process and Operation
1948 ---
Mill Constructed 320 ADMT hardwood --- 1958
Chloride dioxide added to bleaching
1973---
New recovery boiler circuit --- 1977
Mill expansion and dry debarking added
1979 ---
Clarifier for alkaline sewer circuit --- 1981
Major reconstruction after a fire; added condensate stripper
1982 --- turpentine decanter, NGC collection and destruction system,
Installed cooling water recycle system for kiln/causticizing domestic sewage treatment plant and clarifier screening
area system by-pass
1984 --- --- 1985
Spill control completed in #2 mill, improved soap recovery, #2 brownstock closure, spill control system for #1, EO stage
increased chlorine dioxide substitution, #1 mill dedicated to added to #2 bleachery, new instrumentation for bleachery to
hardwood, polymer feed system for causticizer additional decrease chemical
clarifier and improvements to #2
--- 1986
1989 --- Completed modification of #1 brownstock washer improved
Secondary Treatment Installed soap recovery, foam control and vacuum improvements
1991 --- -- 1990
Chlorine strength analyzers added, recirculation piping Increased chlorine dioxide substitution, hypochlorite
installed, new chip thickness screening plant and hot water replaced with Parcycle
stave replaced
-- 1993
1994 --- Concentrator for #2 recovery boiler (black liquor); steam
Replaced 250 m section wooden stave piping operated, two effect concentrator in increase liquor
concentration and moist, low temperature combustion air
1995 --- from the cascade evaporator; low liquor concentration and
Updated chlorine dioxide generator from the re process to moist , low temperature combustion air from the cascade
R8 allowing the mill to continually produce elemental evaporators leads to the formation of TRS compounds;
chlorine free (ECF) pulp in both the hardwood and resulted in improved air quality
softwood mills and lowering the discharge of chlorinated
organics. The diversion Pond was created to collect --- 1996
discharged untreated process water in the event of a spill, More mature wood (purchased), less lignin, hence less sulfur
and serve to collect storm water. No untreated effluent has lignin by-products
bypassed the ASB and no reported spills since 1995.
--- 1997
1998 --- Hydrogen peroxide use started in #2 Mill in bleaching
Hydrogen peroxide use started in #2 mill in bleaching sequence E2 stages
sequence E) stages. #1 mil switched production to
softwood pulp for periodic short campaigns. October #1 mill --- 1999
switched over to 100% ECF bleaching # 2 mill switched over to 100% ECF bleaching in April
2003 --- --- 2000
The mill added an acid activated oxygen bleaching stage in New brownstock washing showers in September
the #2 Bleach Plant resulting in reduced chlorine dioxide
consumption and an AOX (total absorbable organic
halides) reduction of 47% --- 2005
Hardwood line shut down April 1st, reducing waster water
levels by 30%
2006 ---
Mill shutdown February 20 and reopened
--- 2007
#2 mill decreased operations and it only producing softwood
2007 --- pulp
Mill was purchased in the Fall and the Hardwood line
reopened
--- 2009
Mill files for credit protection
Modified from: Bowron, L. 2008. Responses of white sucker (Castostomus commerson) populations
to changes in pulp mill effluent discharges. MSc. Thesis. The University of New Brunswick
16

18. 2.1.4 Evaluation of Water Quality
The water quality in Jackfish Bay has improved based on the sources of water quality data gathered
during the RAP process. Table 2.2 summarizes a comparison of organic and inorganic water
measurements taken at the beginning of the RAP process, with measurements taken in the last 5 years
(Lee, 2009).
Table 2.2: Changes in Water Quality from the Initiation of the RAP to Present
Parameter Change 1989 - 2009
Colour no change
Turbidity improved
Secchi no change
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) improved
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) improved
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) improved
Conductivity no change
pH improved
Alkalinity no change
Phosphorus (P) improved *
Nitrogen (N) quality declined
Cu (Copper) improved
Cd (Cadmium) improved
Pb (Lead) improved
Zn (Zinc) improved
Ni (Nickel) improved
Hg (Mercury) improved *
Phenols improved
Resin Fatty Acids improved
Chloroform improved
Toluene improved
Halogen (AOX) improved
Dioxins/Furans improved
Toxicity improved
Changes in water quality parameters categorized as either no change, improved, or quality
declined (* indicates the parameter is below Provincial Water Quality Objectives).
Problems for water quality and the ecosystem still exist for colour, the potential for eutrophication and
from the presence of high levels of dioxins and furans. Given that federal regulations dictate that dioxins
17

19. and furans in effluent must be non-detectable, it is uncertain if these contaminants originate from the
sediments in Blackbird Creek (i.e. Lake C / Moberly Lake). Early data includes a 1981 survey by the
MOE detailing the types and concentrations of phenolic compounds in the AOC (Kirby 1986), and data
collected by the MOE in 1987 and 1988 (Sherman 1991) covered a detailed assessment of inorganic
parameters from July and August of both years as well as May of 1988. More recently in 2004, the
Ministry of the Environment completed a survey of water quality in Lake Superior that provided
measurements of inorganic and organic parameters (Richman, 2004). Additional water quality information
was also available through the Environmental Effects Monitoring report (EEM Cycle 4 Report) (Farara,
2007).
Preliminary water quality results from an Environment Canada Sediment study of Blackbird Creek in
2006, 2007 and 2008 indicate that water quality in the AOC continues to meet provincial water quality
objectives; however, there is evidence of degraded water quality. For example, in 2008, the dissolved
oxygen content was 40% near the inflow of Blackbird Creek but values dropped drastically to 8%
downstream. Other sites in the Blackbird Creek system had dissolved oxygen levels less than 1.2%. In
the same year, Environment Canada researchers noted that Moberly Lake had a very distinct brown
colour and that the lake was degassing by means of small bubbles across the entire surface (Burniston,
unpublished). These values provide strong evidence of conditions of significant sediment oxygen
demand (SOD) mainly from historic pulp fibre on the creek bottom. Dissolved oxygen will increase during
faster creek flows and decrease to critical values during periods of low flows, creating periodic dissolved
oxygen declines in portions of the creek.
The creek and foam were sampled for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCCDD/Fs), and nutrients and major ions were
sampled at six sites in Lake C (Moberly Lake). Organic foam sampled in the creek had elevated levels of
PAHs and the water of Lake C was very dark brown (resembling coca cola) and was very still and flat.
The mill was closed during the 2006 sampling season and was under reduced operation throughout 2008
(Lee, 2009).
2.1.5 Improvements to Sediment Quality During the RAP Process
The Stage 1 report of the Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan indicated that good sediment quality was a
fundamental requirement for improving water quality problems in Areas of Concern. It was well known
that bleached kraft pulp mill effluents caused adverse effects on sediment quality and sediment dwelling
aquatic life (i.e. benthic organisms) in the Great Lakes Basin. Sediment quality alone is not one of the 14
beneficial use impairments listed in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but is the main source of
contamination to the degradation to benthic communities, a beneficial use impairment identified in
Jackfish Bay. Several contaminants in the sediment of Jackfish Bay exceed low effects levels (LEL) and
severe effect levels (SEL) as outlined by the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (Persaud et al.
2003).
2.1.5.1 Inorganic Contaminants
The Jackfish Bay AOC Stage 1 Report found that the mean concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, and zinc exceeded the Open Water Disposal Guidelines
(OWDG) (Persaud and Wilkins, 1976). The same metals, as well as manganese and lead, exceeded
Lowest Effect Level of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for effects on aquatic organisms. The
mean concentrations of these metals were below the Severe Effect Level of the Provincial Sediment
Quality Guidelines in all of the depositional basins of the AOC, however, maximum concentrations of
arsenic, mercury and manganese did exceed the Severe Effect Level in some non depositional locations.
However, the background metal concentration in sediments of the upper Great Lakes is well known to be
quite high relative to the provincial guidelines. Today this is addressed by improved assessment
methodologies and guidance in the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines document. The metal
18

20. concentrations described in the Stage 1 Report are now considered consistent with natural reference
conditions for Lake Superior.
2.1.5.2 Organic Contaminants
The water-sediment plume from the mouth of Blackbird Creek flows along the western side of Moberly
Bay; the plume is deflected in that direction by the predominant east to west circulation of water in
Jackfish Bay (MOE/MNR, 1991; Farara, 2007). This plume is diluted 5:1 within 500 metres of the mouth
of Blackbird Creek and 20:1 at a distance of 3.5 kilometres into Jackfish Bay (Farara, 2007). Periods of
strong southerly winds cause the plume to be vertically mixed, whereas, periods of lower wind velocity
allow an overflow to develop that extends out of Jackfish Bay reaching a 200:1 dilution off Cape Victoria.
This information leads to the prediction that contaminant levels in the sediment should be highest on the
west side of Jackfish Bay and decrease towards its mouth.
Monitoring data appear to support this prediction. For example, oil and grease contamination shows a
distribution in the bay that supports this conclusion. Milani and Grapentine (2009) found that
concentrations of oil and grease were highest in Moberly Bay (7600 mg/L) and substantially decreased in
Jackfish Bay (1600 mg/kg) and Tunnel Bay (600 mg/kg). Milani and Grapentine found that the three
samples they had from Moberly Bay with high concentrations of organics had dioxin and furan levels
above the non-effect level. One from a sandy site did not. Two sites in Jackfish Bay also exceeded the
non-effect level. The dioxins and furans are probably associated with organic material on the bottom of
Moberly Bay and Jackfish Bay.
Existing data indicates slow deposition of new sediments in the bay. This means that a considerable time
span will be required before the sediment is naturally buried by new material. Also, it is important to note
that the new sediment could contain toxic material washed down from Blackbird Creek or produce
oxygen-depleting conditions during low flow periods.
2.2 Long-Term Water Quality Goals and Revised Delisting Criteria
A 2003 report by North-South Environmental Inc. documented the progress made by implementing the
Remedial Action Plan and outlined how the water use goals were formulated by the PARRC and
government representatives. However, because these goals did not provide clearly measurable and
achievable targets for delisting the AOC, they were used as guidance principles for the development of
clearly measureable delisting criteria. Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment then
developed a revised set of quantifiable delisting criteria for assessing and measuring progress towards
delisting each beneficial use impairment. These revised delisting criteria are based on the principle of
comparison to either:
1) A federal or provincial regulation or guideline,
2) A locally derived risk-based target, or
3) An appropriate reference site outside the AOC. This is a site representative of the local
environmental quality which can serve as a baseline for sites within the AOC.
Table 2.3 outlines the chosen delisting criteria for each BUI identified in the Jackfish Bay AOC, followed
by a brief description of the long-term water quality goals developed by the PARRC. It should be noted
that the delisting criteria provide the measurable and implementable targets from which BUIs will be
delisted within the AOC. The long-term water quality goals do not have to be reached within the AOC
process, but do provide valued goals from which to design remedial actions and ongoing ecosystem
management in Jackfish Bay beyond the scope of the RAP process.
19

21. Table 2.3: Water Use Goals and Delisting Criteria for Remaining BUIs in the Jackfish Bay AOC
Beneficial Use Impairments
(After The Great Lake Water Delisting Criteria Long-Term Water Quality Goals
Quality Agreement, Annex 2)
This BUI will no longer be impaired
when the waters are devoid of any Aesthetic values within the Jackfish
substance which produces a Bay AOC must be improved to
Degradation of Aesthetics
persistent objectionable deposit, encourage its use for recreation and
unnatural colour or turbidity, or to improve its tourism value
unnatural odour
This BUI will no longer be impaired
All fish caught in Blackbird Creek
when the fish consumption
and Jackfish Bay must be safe to
Fish Consumption advisories in the AOC are no more
consume at any size and in any
restrictive than at an appropriate
number. Fish contaminant levels
reference site on Lake Superior
must be less than or equal to
This BUI will no longer be impaired
background levels for consumption
when a statistical analysis can
demonstrate that fish body burdens
Body Burdens of Fish
in Jackfish Bay do not differ Fish Habitat and spawning areas in
significantly from those in the open Blackbird Creek and Jackfish Bay
water reference area must return to a state conducive to
This BUI will no longer be impaired healthy fish populations
when monitoring data shows that
Degradation of Fish the fish community at a population
The Blackbird Creek / Jackfish Bay
Populations level does not differ significantly
fishery must form part of a balanced
from a suitable Lake Superior
and healthy aquatic community
reference site
This BUI will no longer be impaired
when the fish tumour rates / Water quality should be improved to
Fish Tumours and other
deformities in Jackfish Bay do not the point that Jackfish Bay is no
Deformities
statistically exceed rates in suitable longer an Area of Concern
reference sites in Lake Superior
This BUI will no longer be impaired Blackbird Creek can convey mill
when the amount and quality of
effluent provided that it does not
physical, chemical, and biological
Loss of Fish Habitat impair beneficial uses, inhibit
habitat required to achieve Lake indigenous biota, or produce other
Superior Fish Community
adverse effects on the ecosystem
Objectives has been established
The BUI will no longer be impaired
when acute and chronic toxicity of Discharge of toxins must be reduced
Dynamics of Benthic sediment, and composition and to meet or exceed Federal and
Populations densities of benthic communities Provincial guidelines
are statistically indistinguishable
from suitable reference sites Remove Jackfish Bay as an Area of
This BUI will no longer be impaired Concern
when invertebrate tissue
Body Burdens of Benthic concentrations are below either (a)
Populations levels associated with adverse Maintain Present water uses in AOC
impacts or (b) invertebrate tissue
concentrations at reference sites
* See Appendix A for detailed table of the status of beneficial use impairments for the Jackfish Bay AOC
20

22. 3.0 The Status of Beneficial Use Impairments in Jackfish Bay
Table 3.1: Status of Beneficial Use Impairment in the Jackfish Bay Area of Concern
Beneficial Use Impairments Area in Recovery
Status of BUI – Stage 1 Status of BUI – Stage 2
(After The Great Lake Water Status
1991 1998
Quality Agreement, Annex 2) 2010
Degradation of Wildlife Requires Further Requires Further
Not Impaired
Populations Assessment Assessment
Body Burdens of Wildlife Requires Further Requires Further
Not Impaired
Populations Assessment Assessment
Bird and Animal Deformities Requires Further Requires Further
Not Impaired
or Reproductive Problem Assessment Assessment
Requires Further
Degradation of Aesthetics Impaired Impaired
Assessment
Requires Further Requires Further
Fish Consumption Impaired
Assessment Assessment
Requires Further
Body Burdens of Fish Impaired Impaired
Assessment
Degradation of Fish
Impaired Impaired Impaired
Populations
Fish Tumours and other
Impaired Impaired Not Impaired
Deformities
Loss of Fish Habitat Impaired Impaired Impaired
Dynamics of Benthic
Impaired Impaired Impaired
Populations
Body Burdens of Benthic
Impaired Impaired Impaired
Populations
* See Appendix A for detailed table of the status of beneficial use impairments for the Jackfish Bay AOC
21

23. 3.1 The Current Status of Beneficial Uses
The Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan states that: “It was agreed that the AOC should be monitored for
incremental progress with no further intervention at this time.” (Jackfish Bay RAP Team, 1998; pg. iv).
The report also recommends “continued monitoring of the Jackfish Bay AOC to document effects of
historic deposits of contaminated material on the ecosystem.” It is important to note that an area specific
monitoring program was therefore not implemented in Jackfish Bay. Instead, existing government
programs and methodologies would be used to interpret the status of beneficial uses over time. The
monitoring program was to include, but not be limited to, the following programs:
1. Surface Water Surveillance Program (Ministry of the Environment) – to monitor sediment and
benthos at least once every ten years as part of their regular program, and at the specific request
of the Region.
2. Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (Environment Canada) – monitor the effects of the mill
on fish, benthos, and sediment and water quality every three years (unless the mill is out of
operation greater than 8 months during a monitoring period, wherein the three cycles would
restart once the mill becomes operational).
3. Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring (Ministry of the Environment) - monitor contaminant levels in
sport fish, at a minimum of every five years and annually assess the need for additional
collections.
4. Superior Lakewatch Monitoring Program (Ministry of the Environment) – citizen-based monitoring
to document water transparency in nearshore areas of Lake Superior.
Monitoring in accordance with the above recommendations was completed with the exception of the
Superior Lakewatch Program, which was discontinued. In addition to the programs listed above, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada completed
monitoring to assess fish populations and benthos populations and water and sediment quality. Unlike the
routine monitoring programs listed above, some of these programs, such as Environment Canada’s
Benthic Assessment of Sediment (BEAST) were designed to assess specific beneficial use impairments.
Data that are routinely collected with specific study objectives in mind have the most benefit in assessing
environmental recovery. For resource efficiency, it is essential that government scientists consider the
needs of the Remedial Action Plan when conducting research in Jackfish Bay.
3.2 Beneficial Uses
3.2.1 Degradation of Wildlife Populations
Discussions between the AOC stakeholders reflected concerns that Blackbird Creek might attract wildlife
during the spring months based on the rationale that the moderating influence of warm creek water could
accelerate greening of creek side vegetation. This could expose wildlife, particularly moose, to mill
effluent taken up into the plants. Moose activity was interpreted to be high along Blackbird Creek during
the spring when the Stage 1 Report was drafted (1991: p. 141), possibly due to precipitation of salts from
the effluent on the creek banks. However, no data on the possible impacts to wildlife populations due to
contaminants within Jackfish Bay was available at that time.
In 2010, Environment Canada contracted ENVIRON International Corporation to conduct a focused
ecological risk evaluation (ERE) of moose that could forage along Blackbird Creek. The objective of this
evaluation was to estimate the proportion of time that individual moose could forage along the creek
without significant risk of adverse effects (ENVIRON, 2010). This focused ERE evaluated the risks to
moose foraging in or along Blackbird Creek from exposure to chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
present in surface water, sediment, and food items. Based on the available data, the results of this
focused ERE suggests that the risk of adverse effects to moose feeding in or along Blackbird Creek is
quite low, even if they feed exclusively on a daily basis on aquatic plants within Blackbird Creek (rather
22

24. than supplementing that with browse from trees and shrubs). Therefore, additional evaluation of risks to
moose does not appear to be warranted at this time (See Appendix C for full ENVIRON Report).
The Stage 2 report included a 10-year study of herring gulls (Larus argentatus) by the Canadian Wildlife
Service. The study indicated a decline in the number of nesting pairs in the AOC. Reproductive failure did
not appear to be the result of exposure of eggs or adults to dioxins or halogenated aromatic
hydrocarbons. It was believed that the change was the result of a diet change from primarily fish and
insects to varied refuse, and was not attributed to the AOC.
The only sign of population degradation for colonial waterbirds in general in Jackfish Bay has been the
decline in the number of breeding herring gulls. Nest numbers in Jackfish Bay have declined from a high
of 65 at six colony sites in 1989 to 17 at four sites in 1999 and four nests at two sites in 2007 (Morris,
Weseloh, & Shutt, 2003). The decline was believed to be the result of repeated nesting failure, which, in
1991 and 1992, was observed to be the result of repeated predation on eggs and young by common
ravens (Shutt, 1994). The degradation to populations of colonial waterbirds was not attributed to causes
that were unique to the AOC.
3.2.1.1 Assessment Against Delisting Criteria
This BUI has never been listed as impaired - a delisting target would only have been developed if data
indicated that the BUI was impaired and required action. The recent ERE of moose in Blackbird Creek
supports that no impairment has been identified, and there has been no monitoring evidence to date that
shows that the wildlife community (at a population level) differs from suitable Lake Superior reference
sites. This BUI is now listed as ‘No Impairment Identified’.
3.2.2 Body Burdens of Wildlife
The Stage 1 report identified that there was no information on the bioaccumulation of contaminants in
wildlife in the AOC, but it was believed that bioaccumulation was occurring in Jackfish Bay and Blackbird
Creek. This BUI was assigned a Requires Further Assessment status, with plans of the CWS to complete
a blood/tissue analysis for toxins in 1993.
Herring gulls eggs collected within the AOC had relatively low levels of dioxins and other organochlorines;
levels were similar to background levels found elsewhere on Lake Superior (Shutt 1994). The toxins that
were found in the gull eggs were not associated with mill effluent. Contaminate levels did not represent
those of piscivorous gulls. If herring gulls had consumed fish with elevated levels of these toxins from the
AOC then they would have accumulated significant body burdens of these compounds.
3.2.2.1 Assessment Against Delisting Criteria
This BUI has never been listed as Impaired - a delisting target would only have been developed if data
indicated that this beneficial use was impaired and required action. There has been no evidence to date
that suggests that this beneficial use is impaired, and the 1994 data provided by the Canadian Wildlife
Service supports listing this BUI as ‘No Impairment Identified’.
3.2.3 Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems
This BUI was determined to require further assessment following Stage 1 report, and the Stage 2 report
found that small egg size, low chick survival rate, and the lack of nesting gulls in 1997 indicated a decline
in reproductive productivity. However, the Stage 2 report also notes that reproductive impairment in
23

25. herring gulls over two breeding seasons was comparable to non-contaminated sites in Lake Superior
(Shutt 1994 in Jackfish Bay RAP Team, 1991).
In terms of reproductive success, this was evaluated for herring gulls in 1991 and 1992 (Shutt 1994 in
Jackfish Bay RAP Team, 1991) and found to be totally lacking, but unrelated to local sources of pollution.
This nesting failure was due to heavy predation on near term eggs and very young hatchlings, i.e. the
herring gulls were laying eggs normally and the eggs were hatching normally but being eaten by ravens.
Thus, the reproductive success of colonial waterbirds was not affected by pollution in the AOC as it was
the predation by ravens that was the primary source of reproductive problems.
The 10 eggs collected in Jackfish Bay in 1991 contained relatively low levels of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD-dioxin)compared to other sites on the Great Lakes. Levels of other
organochlorines including p,p’ DDE (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), mirex, dieldrin and
oxychlordane were also low. The geometric mean of the sum of 42 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
congeners was 5.0 mg/kg wet weight, below mean egg levels for most Great Lakes sites. A pooled
extract of eggs collected in Jackfish Bay was added to a chick hepatocyte bioassay. Ethoxyresorufin-O-
deethylase (EROD) induction was not elevated above background levels indicating the eggs were not
significantly contaminated with known inducing compounds including the non-ortho substituted PCBs
(Shutt 1994).
Today there are insufficient numbers of colonial waterbirds nesting within Jackfish Bay to make an
assessment on the occurrence of deformities. The species most consistently used for deformity
assessment is the double-crested cormorant and it does not nest in the area at all. The herring gull is a
poor substitute at best, and its numbers are very low and not sufficient for such an assessment.
3.2.3.1 Assessment Against Delisting Criteria
This BUI has never been listed as impaired - a delisting target would only have been developed if data
indicated that its status is impaired and required action. The poor reproductive success of herring gulls is
attributed to natural causes (predation by common raven) rather than human causes e.g. mill effluent. It
has not been demonstrated, either currently or historically, that avian wildlife in Jackfish Bay is impaired
with respect to the occurrence of deformities. However, data about deformities in the AOC is limited at
best and this BUI warrants a follow up study to confirm the not impaired status is still relevant today.
3.2.4 Degradation of Aesthetics
The status of aesthetics has been impaired since Stage 1. At this time, the PAC noted that aesthetics had
been continually improving since the early 1970s; however, there were still concerns about the presence
of foam and the dark colour in Blackbird Creek and Moberly Bay. Stage 2 continued with an impaired
status as conditions had not fully recovered to the satisfaction of the PAC.
Although there have not been any further complaints or reports of degraded aesthetics, it is a common
occurrence to detect odour, foam and steam from locations in the AOC. These occurrences are most
common in Lake ‘C’ (Moberly Lake) and Blackbird Creek.
3.2.4.1 Assessment Against Delisting Criteria
This BUI will no longer be impaired when the waters are devoid of any substance which produces a
persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface
scum). Further assessment is required to confirm that aesthetics are not impaired. The BUI is listed as
‘Requires Further Assessment’.
24

26. 3.2.5 Restrictions on Fish Consumption
This impairment was noted in Stage 1 because the 1991 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish (MOE, 1991)
included consumption restrictions for lake trout greater than 55 centimetres due to concentrations of
dioxins and furans. Lake trout greater than 65 centimetres in length, and whitefish, cisco and white sucker
greater than 45 centimetres in length were also restricted due to mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) concentrations.
Improvements in the mill’s manufacturing processes (See Section 2.1.2) and the addition of secondary
treatment improved water quality; however, dioxin increases in lake whitefish suggested that further
improvements to water quality may be warranted (Jackfish Bay RAP Team, 1998). In Stage 2 the RAP
team listed fish consumption as impaired because consumption restrictions had increased since Stage 1.
The Ministry restricted consumption of lake trout over 45 centimetres because of toxaphene levels (not
due to mill effluent) and restricted consumption of lake whitefish over 55 centimetres because of dioxin
levels. It should be noted that toxaphene is an insecticide, which was never used in the Great Lakes area
(Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1987) and is not a product of the mill’s effluent. Toxaphene was
used in the cotton fields of the southeastern U.S., but was since banned in 1986. Any levels in the Great
Lakes are likely the result of long range aerial transport of historical contamination.
3.2.5.1 Assessment Against Delisting Criteria
The current consumption restrictions in Jackfish Bay continue to be caused by dioxin-like PCBs
(dlPCBs)/dioxins/furans, total-PCB and mercury (Table 3.2). These restrictions apply to lake trout,
whitefish, longnose sucker and burbot in Jackfish Bay, which is defined as Block 8 (Figure 3.1 and Table
3.4). Fish consumption advisories continue to be published by the Ministry of the Environment every other
year through the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish and restrictions are noted for general and sensitive
populations (women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15) (Ministry of the Environment,
2009). The advisories published in the guide for Jackfish Bay and a reference area can be compared to
assess current status of restrictions on fish consumption.
Jackfish Bay is located in Block 8 and the Schreiber/Sewell Point area located in Block 7 serves as a
suitable reference area.
25

27. Figure 3.1: Sampling block locations for Lake Superior as defined by the Ministry of the
Environment Sport Fishing Contaminant Monitoring Program
Table 3.2: List of fish consumption restrictions for the Jackfish Bay (Block 8) for general and
sensitive (women of child-bearing age and children under 15) populations (MOE 2009)
Sampling
Species Contaminant Size Degree of Restriction
site/block
45-65 cm GP - 4 meals/month
Lake trout Dioxins
45-65 cm SP - 4 meals/month
Jackfish Bay 50-60 cm GP - 4 meals/month
(Block 8) 50-60 cm SP - 4 meals/month
Whitefish Dioxins
60-65 cm GP - 2 meals/month
60-65 cm SP – Do not eat
Dioxins include dioxin-like PCBs. Abbreviations- GP=General Population, SP=Sensitive Population
Table 3.3: List of fish consumption restrictions for the open water reference area,
Schreiber/Sewell Point area (Block 7) (MOE 2009)
Sampling
Species Contaminant Size Degree of Restriction
site/block
50-55 cm GP - 2 meals/month
Schreiber/ Lake Trout Dioxins 55-60 cm GP - 1 meals/month
Sewell Point
>60 cm GP - Do not eat
area
(Block 7) 50-65 cm GP - 2 meals/month
Whitefish Dioxins
50-65 cm SP - Do not eat
NOTE: The same abbreviations are used as in Table 3.2.
26

28. Table 3.4 Fish Consumption Restrictions (meals/month) for the Jackfish Bay (MOE 2009)
Note: Sensitive Population refers to women of child bearing age and children under 16 years of age.
This BUI will no longer be impaired when the fish consumption advisories in the AOC are no more
restrictive than at an appropriate reference site on Lake Superior. Data show that Jackfish Bay advisories
are less stringent than advisories in the open water Schreiber/Sewell Point. However, the advisories for
Jackfish Bay are based on 2009 measurements while data from Schreiber/Sewell Point are at least five
years old (MOE, 2009) because samples were not collected in each area for the same year. Analysis
should be conducted on data collected from both sites during the same year. Based on the need for this
additional information, the beneficial use impairment has been listed as ‘Requires Further Assessment’
27